Mystic Chords – Memorial Day 2010 – Fallen Into Shadow

Memorial Day was born in the wake of the American Civil War. Today, we pause to remember the fallen. Today the nation pauses to remember those who gave their lives that the nation may live.

Some of those we pause to honor today, fell long ago. Left to mourn is the nation and the descendants of their descendants.

For others the graves are freshly covered, with too little time for leaves of grass to grow upon their resting place.

Yesterday, 24 year old Marine Corporal Jacob C. Leicht of Texas joined the nation’s fallen as the 1,000th American serviceman killed in Afghanistan. Corporal Leicht was at the ramparts, as ordered. He was on duty. His commander in chief was on vacation in Chicago.

Marine Corporal Jacob C. Leicht was born on the Fourth of July. He had been injured in the line of duty before:

“The blast punched the dashboard radio into his face and broke his leg in two places.

Marine Cpl. Jacob C. Leicht didn’t survive his second encounter with a bomb this week. The death of the 24-year-old Texan born on the Fourth of July marks a grim milestone in the Afghanistan war.

Leicht, who spent two painful years recovering from the Iraq blast, was killed Thursday when he stepped on a land mine in Helmand province that ripped off his right arm. He had written letters from his hospital bed begging to be put back on the front lines, and died less than a month into that desperately sought second tour. [snip]

He said he always wanted to die for his country and be remembered,” said Jesse Leicht, his younger brother. “He didn’t want to die having a heart attack or just being an old man. He wanted to die for something.” [snip]

Leicht’s brothers told the AP that the military also told the family that his death put the toll at 1,000.

When military officers went to tell Leicht’s parents that their adopted son had died in combat, sheriff’s deputies had to help navigate them to the 130-acre family ranch tucked impossibly deep in the Texas Hill Country.

It was here that Jacob Leicht chopped thick cedar trees and hiked the rugged limestone peaks, growing up into an imposing 6-5, 200-pound Marine with a soft heart. He watched “Dora the Explorer” with his brother’s children and confided to family that he was troubled by the thought of young civilians being killed in battle.

But for Leicht, born in a Lemoore, Calif., Navy hospital, the battlefield was the destination. He threw away a college ROTC scholarship after just one semester because he feared it would lead away from the front lines.

“His greatest fear was that they would tell him he would have to sit at a desk for the rest of his life,” said Jonathan Leicht, his older brother.

When Jacob Leicht’s wish finally came true, it didn’t last long.[snip]

Nine days before his brother stepped on a bomb in Afghanistan, Jesse Leicht enlisted in the Marines. Using Facebook to reach a friend stationed at a base not far from his brother, Jesse asked the soldier a favor: If you see Jacob, let him know I signed up like him.”

“They say that time heals a broken heart, but time has stood still since we’ve been apart” sang Ray Charles. For those that have lost loved ones – time stands still. Memory and the present are one. Pain endures. The Mystic bonds of memory choke. The sacred and the profane merge. Love remains.

We wish for the families of those who have fallen that their pain will be eased somewhat by the gratitude of their countrymen.

Today, we take solace in readings from American history. While some steal valor and pretend to be heroes or to have served in the field of battle, some like Corporal Leicht are the genuine thing – a hero for our time. This used to be a land of great heroes and great leaders. Now, our leaders pretend to be Abraham Lincolns or pretend to care about the sufferings of ordinary Americans. Today the path to high office is pretense and inexperience and lack of accomplishment along with a TelePrompTer full of flowery yet empty words.

In his First Inaugural Address to the American people, Abraham Lincoln outlined the struggle the nation faced. In a very real sense, many of the conflicts Lincoln discussed in 1861 are echoed in the issues and struggles Americans face today. Some of course want to discard, like peanut shells, questions and issues the nation has struggled with from the very first. Those questions and issues however cannot be discarded because they are the genuine tensions built into our system of government. The deluded will accept with gulled senses a con man who puffs his chest and tells them these issues don’t matter. But these issues do matter. Lincoln knew they mattered, from the very first:

Abraham Lincoln

The national upheaval of secession was a grim reality at Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration. Jefferson Davis had been inaugurated as the President of the Confederacy two weeks earlier. The former Illinois Congressman had arrived in Washington by a secret route to avoid danger, and his movements were guarded by General Winfield Scott’s soldiers. Ignoring advice to the contrary, the President-elect rode with President Buchanan in an open carriage to the Capitol, where he took the oath of office on the East Portico. Chief Justice Roger Taney administered the executive oath for the seventh time. The Capitol itself was sheathed in scaffolding because the copper and wood “Bulfinch” dome was being replaced with a cast iron dome designed by Thomas U. Walter.

Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President “before he enters on the execution of this office.”

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that–

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause–as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution–to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?

Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”?

I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it–break it, so to speak–but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Civil War came to the United States. Four years of war later the President wore on his face the torment of the nation. There was no time to golf or play games for that American president. Four years of war later the majesty of accomplishments linked to majesty of words:

Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.

It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Words had meaning when they came from the mouth of Abraham Lincoln. Soon after Gettysburg the war was won. As the war drew to a close, so did Lincoln’s life. Soon, Memorial Day would be born to commemorate the dead.

Abraham Lincoln had one last great speech to contribute to the chronicles of the nation. These were not words scratched together by misogynistic frat boys bent on tacking iconographic words onto iconographic words to produce a blizzard of mental images and the perfume of greatness to disguise meaningless defacement of historic words and documents. Lincoln’s words were forged in the fires of experience:

Abraham Lincoln
Second Inaugural Address
Abraham Lincoln
Saturday, March 4, 1865
Chief Justice Salmon Chase administered the oath of office.


At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war–seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

The Civil War ended and so did Abraham Lincoln’s life. The great poet of the age bade farewell:

Walt Whitman (1819–1892). Leaves of Grass.

When Lilacs Last in the Door-yard Bloom’d

WHEN lilacs last in the door-yard bloom’d,
And the great star early droop’d in the western sky in the night,
I mourn’d—and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring.

O ever-returning spring! trinity sure to me you bring;
Lilac blooming perennial, and drooping star in the west,
And thought of him I love.

O powerful, western, fallen star!
O shades of night! O moody, tearful night!
O great star disappear’d! O the black murk that hides the star!
O cruel hands that hold me powerless! O helpless soul of me!
O harsh surrounding cloud, that will not free my soul!

In the door-yard fronting an old farm-house, near the white-wash’d palings,
Stands the lilac bush, tall-growing, with heart-shaped leaves of rich green,
With many a pointed blossom, rising, delicate, with the perfume strong I love,
With every leaf a miracle……and from this bush in the door-yard,
With delicate-color’d blossoms, and heart-shaped leaves of rich green,
A sprig, with its flower, I break. [snip]

Over the breast of the spring, the land, amid cities,
Amid lanes, and through old woods, (where lately the violets peep’d from the ground, spotting the gray debris;)
Amid the grass in the fields each side of the lanes—passing the endless grass;
Passing the yellow-spear’d wheat, every grain from its shroud in the dark-brown fields uprising;
Passing the apple-tree blows of white and pink in the orchards;
Carrying a corpse to where it shall rest in the grave,
Night and day journeys a coffin.

Coffin that passes through lanes and streets,
Through day and night, with the great cloud darkening the land,
With the pomp of the inloop’d flags, with the cities draped in black,
With the show of the States themselves, as of crape-veil’d women, standing,
With processions long and winding, and the flambeaus of the night,
With the countless torches lit—with the silent sea of faces, and the unbared heads,
With the waiting depot, the arriving coffin, and the sombre faces,
With dirges through the night, with the thousand voices rising strong and solemn;
With all the mournful voices of the dirges, pour’d around the coffin,
The dim-lit churches and the shuddering organs—Where amid these you journey,
With the tolling, tolling bells’ perpetual clang;
Here! coffin that slowly passes,
I give you my sprig of lilac.

We give our sprig of lilac to the fallen on this Memorial Day 2010.


Obama’s Oily Holes Still Unplugged

You have not read it elsewhere and probably never will – but it was the gold curtains. The gold curtains spoke the loudest. This disconnected from reality mess of a man, who was gifted the Democratic nomination, surrounded himself like a foreign potentate in gorgeous gold curtains.

Turn off the sound from Thursday’s love-in and the gold curtains spoke more than the flowery, stumbling, drivel from the TelePrompTer. The message: I got mine, screw you.

Who else but Barack Obama would go on vacation at a time like this? Having spent a few, forced on him, obligatory hours, less than it takes for one of his many golf games, Obama left the Gulf and all those White Working Class human beings. “Why bother,” he must have thought, “they are not my coalition.”

Who else but Barack Obama can possibly think that a few flowery words and some pretend concern, with stage props amassed on the beaches, will continue to fool? Obama is a fool who thinks you can fool all of the people all of the time.

Clown Royalty

Who else but Barack Obama recycles fake concern with recycled TelePrompTer verbiage garbage? Bret Baier noted the recycled verbiage:

My Job right now is just to make sure that everybody in the Gulf understand, this is what I wake to in the morning and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about.”

Obama thug Gibbs on January 20, 2010:
“[President Obama] wakes up in the morning and he goes to bed at night thinking about how to make people’s lives better – how to create that environment for creating jobs…”

Barack Obama on September 11, 2009 and multiple times:
“My greatest responsibility is the security of the American people. It’s the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning. It’s the last thing I think about when I go to sleep at night.”

Why bother writing something original? He simply does not care. His frat boy writers don’t care. They are from another world.

In that world, Hopium is guzzled, the words are flowery and hard working Americans are held in disdain.

“Obama skipped the memorial service for the 11 workers killed on the rig earlier this week to fly to California, where he collected $1.7 million for Democrats and toured a solar panel plant. On the day when the significant clots of oil started appearing on the Louisiana coast, Obama was sitting down for an interview to talk hoops with TNT’s Marv Albert.”

In her latest writing we discover Big Pink stalker Peggy Noonan still does not fully understand the selfishness at the bottomless, self-centered, opportunistic vapidity called Barack Obama. Noonan at least begins to understand that many Democrats, even the ones who pretend otherwise (and we won’t name names today), have not forgotten 2008 nor are they, like us, “reconciled” to the Chicago clown. Noonan writes:

“What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama’s standing with Democrats. They don’t love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president’s Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.”

Noonan echoed what we have been strategizing about for a long time now – Obama must be run off before 2012.

Unlike Noonan, the Washington Post still does not understand the usually-below-the-surface and thus far mostly civil war within the Dimocratic Party. But the Post does help us understand why the fear of Clintons still motivates conservatives and Republicans who don’t realize Obama should be their target and that they need to abandon their feral hatreds and tap into the cerebral cortex.

Some conservatives understand their target should be Obama. Some conservatives however cannot help but give in to the feral when that Clinton moon shines on them. But thanks to the Washington Post and their dimwitted coverage we do understand the Clinton hatred a bit more because at some level they know that Obama is a boob and Hillary and Bill Clinton are smart:

“In a toxic environment where candidates are running away from the establishment, Clinton has swooped in to Arizona, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York and Pennsylvania, and he is expected to make more stops before November’s midterm elections.

Republicans have taken notice, suggesting that Clinton might play a bigger role this cycle than Obama. “President Obama spends his days in the Oval Office, but it appears, more and more, that he has no idea how to use it,” said GOP strategist Kevin Madden. “Bill Clinton isn’t in the Oval Office these days, but he knows how to use the presidency.”

The “toxic environment” is code language for “Obama is poison.” The ‘knows how to use it’ language is code for “Bill Clinton is competent and knows what he is doing but Barack Obama is a boob, an incompetent boob.” Which brings us back to Peggy Noonan’s latest column.

After her wink and nod support of Barack Obama in 2008, Noonan does get some of the horror but not the full horror of what has been unleashed from the swamps of Chicago. Noonan now whines: “He Was Supposed To Be Competent”:

I don’t see how the president’s position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president’s political judgment and instincts.

There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don’t see how you politically survive this.

The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They’re in one reality, he’s in another.”

Noonan does not understand that that amazing Obama “judgment” and that “won” and the “shrewdly” were all figments of her imagination. Obama had to be dragged across the finish line after running a campaign in which any of the many glaring campaign mistakes and lies (Wright, “bitter”, “clinging”, “Punjab”) were forgiven by Noonan and the Big Media hypocrites and liars. That fairy tale good “judgment” was always political calculation and a fawning Big Media that worshiped not vetted.

That “shrewdly” was Big Media protection and a Dimocratic establishment that we now know conspired behind the scenes to gift Obama the nomination. The Big Media protection extended to the Tenessee floods and more than a month of ignoring the gusher of petroleum death beneath the surface of the Gulf. Big Media protected their stooge Obama. Big Media shilled the great Obama “judgement” and the supposed shrewd victory. It was all a fairy tale.

During the campaign and even now it is considered “racist” code language to describe Obama as alien to America (the graphic of Obama as alien we again publish today was a production of the fever mills of the “B.O. Generation” and was produced by Obama supporters). But Noonan describes an alien figure who addresses his concerns not “normal” “small town” “bitter” “clinging” American concerns. Obama as alien is not “racist” it is reality.

Noonan also echoes our analogy from “Obama’s Oil Slick” that the Obama “alien-ness” and disconnection to normal America, the scandals, the misdemeanors, and Obama’s Katrina are all related. We wrote in early May:

When the Obaminations began during the primary elections of 2008, the PINO websites were on the beach sunning themselves and shouting “racist!” at all who saw what was coming. The Obama oil slick was on it’s way to shore long ago. The flames from the Obama oil slick were visible long ago.

Now the oil slick is coming home… to the roost.

Noonan belatedly echoes:

“They saw the dollars gushing night and day, and worried that while everything looked the same on the surface, our position was eroding. They have worried about a border that is in some places functionally and of course illegally open, that it too is gushing night and day with problems that states, cities and towns there cannot solve.

And now we have a videotape metaphor for all the public’s fears: that clip we see every day, on every news show, of the well gushing black oil into the Gulf of Mexico and toward our shore. You actually don’t get deadlier as a metaphor for the moment than that, the monster that lives deep beneath the sea.[snip]

This is what happened with Katrina, and Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn’t like about the Bush administration, everything it didn’t like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism.”

The monster, dear Peggy, is not beneath the sea. It comes from Chicago.

As the Blagojevich trial gusher uncorks this coming week, as the gusher of corruptions hurtles unstopped from Pennsylvania to the Colorado, as the thick ooze of crude erupts beneath the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Americans understand the danger which gathers force. The propaganda gusher on Thursday, the day of the Obama gold curtain appearance, declared the gusher of oil was blocked. But it is not so.

“HOUSTON — BP engineers failed again to plug the gushing oil well on Saturday, a technician working on the project said, representing yet another setback in a series of unsuccessful procedures the company has tried a mile under the sea to stem the flow spreading into the Gulf of Mexico.”

The attempted propaganda gusher to shut down investigations into the Sestack scandal are equally unplugged. The New York Times quandary is the law versus Obama love and the “everybody does it” defense:

“Most parents do not accept that excuse from their children and the public should not accept it here,” he said. “A line may have been crossed. But we do not know all the facts right now, and we cannot fairly judge the situation until we do.”

We need a gusher of investigations and facts to counter the gusher of corruption and lies. Obama’s oily holes of sewer corruption must be plugged with brutal force if we are ever to wash ourselves clean.


The Oily Obama Scandals Gusher – Sestak, Clinton, and Obstruction Of Justice

It’s a gusher. The Oily Obama Sestak story exploded today. As we predicted yesterday, the slimy Obama White House released it’s stonewall cover-up report on a Friday before a major holiday. But that strategy won’t work. The cover-up won’t cover up. A potential felony has been committed. A potential impeachment is on the way. The Obama Chicago Corruption Circus tent will soon fold. A Special Prosecutor is desperately needed by the American people to cut off the corrupt Chicago tentacles.

Now Bill Clinton is involved in the slimy Obama potential felony. The White House puts Bill Clinton right into the center of this scandal – and it is now an official scandal – and our sympathy for Bill is limited.

Bill Clinton is about to find out that if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton should have from the very start kept away from the Chicago corruption, even if Hillary decided to serve her country as Secretary of State. But keep away from the Chicago Corruption. For whatever reason Bill Clinton “did his duty” and helped out the White House. We have little sympathy for Bill here. Bill Clinton is about to find out that:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

To compound the problem, Bill Clinton met with Barack Obama yesterday. To all appearances this meeting now appears to be a “get the story straight” meeting. It reeks of obstruction of justice. Central player in the drama, Rahm Emanuel, disappeared to Israel, and has not answered questions.

Also yesterday, the White House, according to Roll Call, contacted Sestaks brother. This also gives the appearance of a “get the story straight” obstruction of justice.

“…Sestak said his brother and an unnamed White House official or officials spoke about “what was going to occur.” Sestak declined to identify who made the call for the administration, adding that he has had no direct contact with the White House.

Sestak called Obama a “pretty legitimate person.” He added, “But we’ll find out shortly what they have to say.”

Sestak was tight-lipped about the situation, declining to comment on whether he would agree with the White House’s take on the situation. He pledged to say more — and even to return to Washington for a Capitol Hill news conference over the weekend or early next week — once the White House had made its announcement.”

These White House contacts with potential witnesses to an investigation reek of obstruction of justice. That Bill Clinton met privately with Barack Obama yesterday looks ugly in the extreme. Of course this all does put Bill in the driver’s seat. Eventually Bill Clinton will have to answer questions on this Obama scandal and what he says can destroy the Obama White House and flush out the sewers of corruption gushing from Chicago.

The Obama thug machine spewed a page and a quarter “response” [read the short, flimsy thing HERE] to the potentially felony which has been alleged. It is a stonewall response in every way. There are no details, no dates, no information of any sort – just untrustworthy denials. And as we wrote, this report was issued while one of the central figures, Rahm Emanuel, is in Israel and not willing to answer questions.

Big Media and Big Blog boys are in full defense mode as the Obama White House sinks from it’s own oily corruption. Journalistic poseurs such as Ben Smith write: “With Bill Clinton now in the middle of a Sestak story whose import I’m still having a bit of trouble grasping” and clown “lawyers” who LeftTalk think the story is over. These clods seem not to understand that there is a felony involved.

There is a felony crime alleged here and the person making the allegations is a key material participant. That person is Joe Sestak.

One of the statutes of this potential felony is this one:

“Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. [snip]

1972 – Pub. L. 92-225 struck out “work,” after “position,”, inserted “contract, appointment,” after “compensation,” and “or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit,” after “Act of Congress,”, and substituted “in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office” for “in any election”.”

This is exactly what material witness, Joe Sestak, alleged on February 18, 2010:

“It was just something I’d been hearing about from a variety of sources. Was it true? I didn’t know , but I decided to pop the question.

During the taping of my Comcast Network Voice of Reason show, which airs Sunday night at 9:30, I asked Congressman Joe Sestak: “Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?

Sestak looked a little surprised by the question. He said, “Yes.”

I asked him if the job was Navy Secretary. He said, “I can’t comment on that.” In the next few seconds, he admitted that it was a “high up’ job, that it came from the White House, and that he didn’t accept the offering. He proceeded to say that nothing will stop him from completing the race against Specter for the Democratic nomination.

Was I surprised? A little. After all, I was just probing.

Two hours later, I called the White House press office. I played the tape, and asked for a reaction. They never called back. That didn’t surprise me. If it did happen, and if they did try to get Sestak out of the race, how could they deny it?

Someone, or a lot of someones are lying. Sestak must testify under oath before a prosecutor – he’s either a liar, imbecile, or a material witness to a felony. Bill Clinton must testify under oath before a prosecutor. Rahm Emanuel must testify under oath before a prosecutor. Barack Obama must testify under oath before a prosecutor.

A Special Prosecutor is needed to get to the bottom of this scandal. The Gulf of Mexico is drenched in Oil. The District of Columbia is drenched in Corruption.


The Oily Obama Press Conference

Update VIII: Big Pink favorite Craig Crawford agrees with us:

“A defensive, un-authoritative, and equivocal Barack Obama did nothing today to show he’s in charge of what appears to be our biggest oil spill in history. He couldn’t even answer whether or not he had fired someone.

Today’s press conference — his first since July — was a time for the President to demonstrate he is on top of the crisis. Despite repeated assertions of control, Obama’s awkward demeanor suggested just the opposite. He came across as a beleaguered bureaucrat on damage control.

Perhaps the most stunning missed opportunity to show some authority was his non-answer to a question about whether US Minerals Management Service Director Elizabeth Birnbaum was fired. “I found out about her resignation today,” he obliquely said.

While Birnbaum’s departure is hardly at the top of the list of concerns in this disaster, Obama’s detachment was indicative of the impression he has allowed of a president on the sidelines.”

Before the publicity stunt Crawford had some wise things to say as well.

Tom Bevan on Obama’s failed, oily publicity stunt:

“If Obama had given today’s press conference four weeks ago, he might be in far less hot water than he’s currently in. But stepping up to the teleprompter 38 days after the initial spill, with all the intervening time and press coverage of the event, and asserting that he’s been on top of it like white on rice since Day One comes across very much like historical revisionism from the department of C.Y.A.

The press, to the extent they do their jobs, should be able to easily go back through the chronology of the last five weeks and find plenty of gaping holes in Obama’s claim of instant, constant, and urgent engagement on behalf of the White House and his administration. Obama said he’d leave the Katrina comparisons to the media which, given the skepticism expressed by some of the questions by reporters, is something he might live to regret.

Two other problems with the press conference, one factual and one stylistic. The first: it came across as contradictory for Obama – again, for a man who claims to be waking up and going to bed thinking about nothing else – to be so uninformed about the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Elizabeth Birnbaum, the director of MMS.”

It appears “daddy” did not plug the hole he dug for himself. “Daddy” also has a Sestak hole to fill. We expect that hole will be covered tomorrow with a brand new stonewall.


Update VII: What is ultimately terrifying is if we believe Barack Obama, which we don’t. Imagine for a moment, if Barack Obama is telling the truth, which he is not. If Obama is to be believed, he really did do the best he can, he really did exert himself – that is scary. If that is the best he can do the oceans will rise, the planet will keel.

Here’s Politico’s sympathetic version of today’s silly publicity stunt:

“Those who think that we were either slow in our responses or lacked urgency don’t know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred,” Obama said during a rare news conference in the White House East Room. “We understood from day one the potential enormity of this crisis and acted accordingly.” [snip]

“There shouldn’t be any confusion here: the federal government is fully engaged and I’m fully engaged,” he said.

Obama also tried to address critics of the government’s role by making an unequivocal declaration: the federal government is heading up the relief and cleanup response.

The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began the federal government has been in charge of the response effort,” he said. “Make no mistake: BP is operating at our direction.”

The past month is supposed to assure Americans? This is the best the Boob can do?

At today’s publicity stunt Obama also stated he did not know whether Liz Birnbaum quit or was fired. Imagine that. We are supposed to believe that on the matter of a major quit/firing – a few hours before a nationally televised press conference, a person who says he is deeply involved in the details and “in charge”, “fully engaged” does not know what happened on a simple bureaucratic question. Obama says he is in charge but does not know anything and we are supposed to believe and be satisfied.

No doubt the Hopium guzzler Big Boy blogs will accept Obama’s version of reality. But even if you accept the Sergeant Schultz “I know nothing, nothing….” excuses along with the “I am the President” ego fluffery – this is a worrisome reality we are in.

On the Sestak matter Obama likewise appears to know nothing but assures us there will be a “response” soon. No doubt the response will come late on a Friday of a holiday weekend busy with news. Hey, what about tomorrow on Memorial Day weekend Friday?

Expect the “response” tomorrow after additional publicity stunts from the Chicago clown.


Update VI: Major Garrett asks “are you comfortable with boots on the neck” type rhetoric. What about Sestak?

Obama: Very shortly, we will put out a “response” on the Sestak matter. As to Salazar who came up with the “boots’ language, he was upset. Salazar can speak for himself.

Obama ends with more homey references, from the TelePrompTer, about how the ocean is sacred and his little girl asks him if the “hole is plugged” (a vulgarity in tone) while he shaves in the bathroom. He is really, really, really, concerned. No doubt the concern is about his political well being.

Press conference ends with Obama taking responsibility and then just as quickly letting go of it.


Update V: Latin America correspondent has a question on the troops sent to the Mexican border.

Obama repeats he is the president. He does not like the Arizona law but won’t explicitly call for a boycott (an oily way to call for a boycott).


Update IV: Jackie Calmes: Following up on Chip Reid, weeks before the disaster you approved the drilling even though you say you knew the mess the Minerals agency was in.

Obama: We need oil. Where I was wrong was in believing the oil companies. They said there were safety provisions. But this was unprecedented and my assumptions proved to be incorrect.

Another from Calmes: What in blazes was Salazar doing? Was Birnbaum fired?

Obama: I don’t know if Birnbaum was fired, I’m too busy. Salazar is doing a heckava job.

Obama takes a shot at Sarah Palin by saying he never said “Drill Baby Drill”. He follows that shot by saying how he has tried to work with Republicans.


Update III: Steve Thomas: You said you were ready on Day 1 so why then are things still developing and equipment still being sent?

Obama says the same things again. Even sort of sheepishly admits that by citing his answer(?) to Tapper.

Chip Reid: Was Elizabeth Birnbaum fired, why? Should other heads role? Salazar has blamed Bush for the cozy relationship with regulators and oil companies. Reid says who knew all that so why didn’t things change.

Obama’s Oily Answer: We changed things. But… But… the “culture” of the agency did not change fast enough and I can’t do anything about that. Oh, and Birnbaum quit.

Julianna is next: Can BP information be trusted? Obama says BP’s interests align with the public interest!!!! After some running around Obama admits – The interest of BP might be to minimize the damage. This is where we might have fallen short, but this does not contradict my previous oily answer. Obama also throws HOPE under the bus and further admits we should have prepared for the worst.

Helen Thomas: When are we getting out of Afghanistan and don’t give us the Bushism that we have to go there so they don’t come here? Obama immediately proceeded to say we went there because they came here. “They are a threat to us.” Obama does his Harry Belafonte impression by using that politically correct pronunciation of “Tal eee ban”.


Update II: Jake Tapper of ABC quotes Obama saying “everything is being done” but Tapper says that is not true. Tapper cites examples of things not done – barrier island idea by Governor Jindal, tankers sent to collect oil, foreign help, etc. Tapper: How can you say everything is being done when it is not? You’re a liar OilBama! is the point of Jake Tapper.

Obama’s answer is a long-winded one which asserts “decisions were made”.

Chuck Todd has the third: The role of Allen and authority. Also – What about the Katrina comparisons?

Obama: This administration was “on top” of the crisis, Obama says regarding Katrina comparisons. “We’ve got to get it right” is the confused response to the responsibility question and why BP is not doing what should be done. Obama relies on the use of lots of “unprecedented” type arguments, “I am really concerned” types of expressions, and “we did everything right because our advice comes from the best scientists and lots of experts.” Forget that things are totally FUBAR according to your eyes, and instead “trust me”. Yeah, that’s the ticket.


Update: Obama started off by blaming someone other than himself. Earlier in the morning, the head of the U.S. Minerals Management Service was fired – oil spigot barn door closed after the oil horses have left the well barn.

Obama closes the opening remarks with TelePrompTer expressions of concern.

The first question from Jennifer Loven was about BP or the government in control and about his own personal involvement. Obama began with the usual ‘we were on the job on day one’ rubbish. As usual the answer to “who’s running things?” Obama gave an oily answer which can be reduced to ‘the government’s in charge but BP has the expertise’.


It will be on momentarily. We’ll comment on it soon.


The Sedition Edition – Sestak Shutup, 2×4 Schumer, BP Daschle, OilBama, Arizona Brewer, And Alexi Giannoulias, Part II

The categories of disaster, as we wrote, continue to multiply “at an exponential rate“. The natural disaster called Barack Obama must be removed from office. Today we continue with our seditious questions.

We’re not the only ones with seditious questions [WARNING: video of Keith Olbermann and Donna Brazille may blind you]:

Let’s pile the questions up before all too briefly discussing them:

  • Remember Alice Palmer, Paul Hackett (Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel were the culprits who forced Paul Hackett off the ballot) and the many others forced off the ballot? Do remember how Barack Obama stabbed Alice Palmer, his friend, in the back when she stood in the way of his election. For that matter, recall why Governor of Illinois and former Obama pal Rod Blagojevich is under indictment. So why is anyone surprised that Obama would commit an impeachable offense to get Joe Sestak off the ballot?
  • When are Barack Obama and 2×4 Chuck Schumer to be asked whether they condone a Mosque built next to the remains of the World Trade Center? When will Chuck Schumer take a stance on this issue?
  • Just how thin-skinned is unqualified, inexperienced, Boob Obama?
  • When will the Obama Dimocrats learn – from Jerry Springer???? – to stop the class based bigotry against Sarah Palin and White Working Class Americans?
  • When will Barack Obama and his corrupt henchmen stop blaming George W. Bush for the corrupt incompetence in the Gulf of Mexico as barrels of oil slick the coast and the waters like a Chicago political meeting?
  • As we have noted before, Republicans have the most important Latino politician. Republicans have the most (excluding Hillary) exciting woman politician. Republicans have the most exciting white male politician. Now Republicans have the two most forceful governors. Does the Dimocratic Party, the once great Democratic Party have anyone to match such firepower from simple straight talk?
  • Who the hell does Joe Sestak think he represents?
  • * * * * * *

    2×4 Chuck Schumer has to answer the Mosque question before November. 2×4 Schumer must be asked before the United Nations considers mocking Mohammad a death penalty crime.

    Last night a community board in New York City approved the construction of a Mosque right next to the World Trade Center site. Silence from 2×4 Schumer who is up for reelection in November.

    When Catholics wanted to build a Carmelite convent at the death camp in Auchwitz-Birkenau there were protests. The Vatican wisely relocated the convent in order to maintain good relations with the Jewish community. There was controversy over the role of the Vatican and the Catholic Church during World War II and the possible complicity with the Third Reich in the attempted extermination of the Jews. But now, families of September 11 victims are supposed to acquiesce in what appears to be a triumphalist massive Mosque right next to the World Trade Center where thousands perished in a radical Islamic attack. The massive Mosque is scheduled to open on September 11, 2011. Republicans are rightly making this an issue in this year’s elections.

    When will Chuck Schumer be asked questions about the building of this triumphalist Mosque?

    * * * * * *

    Thin-skinned Obama was heckled this week at a Barbara Boxer fundraiser by gay activists not fooled by his flowery talk. Thin-skinned Obama was flustered and tried to bully his way past the heckler.

    Yesterday Barack Obama showed his thin skin again (and his lies) when he met with Republican senators who questioned his “audacity and unbending partisanship”.

    “I told him I thought there was a degree of audacity in him even showing up today after what happened with financial regulation,” Corker told reporters. “I just wanted him to tell me how, when he wakes up in the morning, comes over to a luncheon like ours today, how does he reconcile that duplicity?”

    Four people who were in the room said Obama bristled and defended his administration’s handling of negotiations. On the way out, Corker said, Obama approached him and both men repeated their main points.

    “I told him there was a tremendous disconnect from his words and the actions of his administration,” Corker said.”

    Charles Krauthammer had the last word when he volunteered to write a prescription for Valium.

    * * * * * *

    As the Gulf of Mexico bleeds black blood, Obama henchmen are blaming George W. Bush instead of taking responsibility. Chris Dodd, the disgraced Senator from Connecticut (not the current disgraced wannabee Senator from Connecticut) was on the Don Imus show (why are people still going on that disgraced show?):

    “When asked by Don Imus on his morning program if the Obama was to blame for lack of response to the oil spill, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) blamed the Bush administration. “Well, you know, they come into office a year ago with all of this. And so, after the last eight years,” he said.

    At that point, Imus interrupted and asked if he has “lost” his mind for blaming Bush. “The President has been in office for a year and a half and they’ve been dragging their feet and even people like James Carville said that his behavior ‘has been at the very best lackadaisical and naive’ and you’re still going to try to blame Bush?” he said.”

    Dodd was one of the Obama voters that during the health care debate put his trust on regulators. But as we now know, regulators have been captured in all sectors of the economy. Obama fluffers at MSNBC noted how “regulators” took industry gifts. And there was more porn (as in the SEC during the financial crisis in late 2008). When will Obama fix the problems he campaigned to CHANGE? Barack Obama has left the revolving door turning in the White House and in the Executive Branch. Obama is to blame.

    * * * * * *

    Jerry Springer of all people, is correct:

    “Well, [Sarah Palin is] incredibly charismatic. Her politics are different than mine. But I don’t belittle her. She represents a significant segment of America. It might not be the majority, but certainly a significant segment of America that lives her lifestyle and believes as she does. And therefore, I can disagree with her without making fun of her. And for those of us who are more liberal, we step on dangerous ground when we try to belittle her, or belittle her fundamentalism, or religion or stuff like that, saying you know she is backwoods or stuff like that. That is how liberals come across as elitists or snobs … She touches a nerve for people who resent being looked down upon. And there is a significant segment of America that feels it is being looked down upon. I think that’s dangerous. It’s where people who are liberal can get into trouble. So, I respect her. I disagree with her. But I have nothing bad to say about her.”

    * * * * * *

    And who the hell does Joe Sestak think he represents? The people of Pennsylvania just rid themselves of Arlen Specter who cared more about saving his job than representing them. Now Joe Sestak, who has potentially incriminating evidence is withholding that testimony/evidence. This is evidence of a potentially impeachment worthy crime. Joe Sestak either represents the people of Pennsylvania or he represents corrupt forces in the White House.

    “What did the White House promise Joe Sestak if he dropped out of the Senate race, and why won’t they talk about it?

    There was a time when the White House and Rep. Joe Sestak were enemies. Now they’re in the bunker together: Neither wants to talk about whether a White House official tried to get Sestak to drop his campaign for senator by offering him a job. With its reticence, the Obama White House raises some eerie (and, from its perspective) unwelcome parallels with the Bush White House.

    President Obama endorsed Sestak’s opponent, incumbent and recent Democratic convert Arlen Specter, in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary. Included in the standard package of services that accompanies such support is “field-clearing”—encouraging challengers to look for employment opportunities elsewhere. Sestak says that an administration official offered him a job if he’d drop out of the race. He declined and went on to win the party’s nomination. Now he and White House officials are allies in trying to keep the seat in the Democratic Party.[snip]

    Offering a job in exchange for dropping out of a political race actually is illegal.”

    That type of activity is the impeachment crime against Governor Blagojevich. The Illinois governor was forced out and now faces trial. The same Chicago style questions must be raised about Chicago Obama.

    As we wrote in 2008, Americans need a Special Prosecutor. In this case the supposed Department of Justice has ruled out a Special Prosecutor. As the New York Times, on the front page notes, this will not go away and “trust me” is not enough.

    “The problem with both responses, of course, is that we can’t just take the word of White House officials. Sestak says the offer was made, and the White House admits there were conversations. At least three laws might have been broken, according to Darrell Issa, the Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. With that many, it shouldn’t be up to one of the interested parties to decide whether any laws were broken.

    Chicago Dick Durbin has been forced to squeak out a demand for answers from the White House and Joe Sestak.

    Sestak must answer to the people of Pennsylvania via prosecutors. The “ethics” committee in the House should demand answers from Sestak.

    Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) also wants answers. Weiner is asking seditious questions just like us.

    The New York Times almost equals the Big Pink warning we began to sound years ago:

    Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

    The New York Times is mocking, on its front page, the “trust me” bull:

    “For Sestak Matter, a ‘Trust Us’ Response From White House.

    “For three months, the White House has refused to say whether it offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak to get him to drop his challenge to Senator Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary, as Mr. Sestak has asserted.

    But the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did.

    “Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Sunday on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “And nothing inappropriate happened.”

    “Improper or not, did you offer him a job in the administration?” asked the host, Bob Schieffer.

    “I’m not going to get further into what the conversations were,” Mr. Gibbs replied. “People that have looked into them assure me that they weren’t inappropriate in any way.”

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, the “trust us” response from the White House has not exactly put the matter to rest. With Mr. Sestak’s victory over Mr. Specter in last week’s primary, the questions have returned with intensity, only to remain unanswered. Mr. Gibbs deflected questions 13 times at a White House briefing last week just two days after the primary. Mr. Sestak, a retired admiral, has reaffirmed his assertion without providing any details, like who exactly offered what job.”

    As we noted above, this has all the earmarks of Rahm Emanuel. But Emanuel would not have acted without Barack Obama’s corrupt complicity.

    “There are certainly statutes that bar government employees from using their authority to influence a Senate nomination or to promise employment as a reward for political activity. Yet presidents have given appointments to many people to reward allies or take would-be obstacles out of the way for other allies, explicitly or not.

    Even if the conversations were perfectly legal, as the White House claims, the situation challenges President Obama’s efforts to present himself as a reformer who will fix a town of dirty politics. And the refusal to even discuss what was discussed does not advance the White House’s well-worn claim to being “the most transparent” in history.

    When Mr. Gibbs was pressed on the matter Thursday, he resolutely referred to his original statement exonerating the White House and refused to elaborate.

    “But you never really explained what the conversation was,” said Jake Tapper of ABC News.

    “And I don’t have anything to add today,” Mr. Gibbs said.

    “But,” Mr. Tapper continued, “if the White House offers a congressman a position in the administration in order to convince that congressman not to run for office …”

    “I don’t have anything to add to that,” Mr. Gibbs said.

    Mr. Tapper persisted: “But do you really think the American people don’t have a right to know about what exactly the conversation was?”

    I don’t have anything to add to what I said in March,” Mr. Gibbs said.”

    It’s an impeachable offense. If Joe Sestak wants to be the Obama protector not the representative of the people of Pennsylvania, he must be thrown out of the House and not be elected to the Senate. If Joe Sestak changes his story it will not be viewed as a truthful change. If Joe Sestak names a low ranking official as the corrupt force, the question will remain as to how high up the chain the corruption runs. We think we know the answer to that question.

    The Stonewall continues:

    “The White House had nothing more to say Monday. David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, said on CNN, “I don’t think any questions will be left unanswered on this,” but he did not actually answer the questions. Other Democrats have come to the White House’s defense by arguing that even if Mr. Sestak’s assertion about a job were true, it would hardly be shocking in a city of political tradeoffs.

    “I don’t see the scandal,” Steve Elmendorf, who was chief of staff to former Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri when he was the House Democratic leader, said in an e-mail message. “Sestak is totally qualified for the job, and Dem and Rep presidents routinely offer members of Congress jobs for all sorts of reasons.”

    Tell that to Blagojevich, Elmendorf. The pay to play has worn think with the corrupt forces in the White House. Whatever happened to Hope and Change?

    “Indeed, Douglas B. Sosnik, the White House political director under President Bill Clinton, said using jobs to reward political friends was simply “business as usual.” But, he added, that was the problem: Mr. Obama promised not to perpetuate business as usual. “It cuts against the Obama brand,” he said. “The public tolerance for these deals is less than in the past.”[snip]

    “Tell me a White House that didn’t do this, back to George Washington,” Mr. Kaufman said. “But here’s the difference — the times have changed and the ethics have changed and the scrutiny has changed. This is the kind of thing people across America are mad about.”

    Moreover, he said, Mr. Obama’s own rhetoric raised the bar: “When you get out there and say, ‘We’re going to do things totally different, we’re above all this and we’re going to be totally transparent,’ they cause their own problem because they’re not being transparent.”

    Americans want straight talkers. Jan Brewer is increasingly viewed as a straight talker because she is… straight talking.

    And Brewer is straight talking with a smile too.

    Agree with her or not, Jan Brewer is straight talking. Joe Sestak is weasel talking – just like Barack Obama.

    If Joe Sestak wants to protect the corrupt, he cannot be trusted. He’s like Obama.

    Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

    They both must go – as a start.


    The Sedition Edition – Sestak Shutup, 2×4 Schumer, BP Daschle, OilBama, Arizona Brewer, And Alexi Giannoulias, Part I

    Thanks to Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick and liar author and columnist Joe Klein we now know that for the past three years we have been engaged in sedition.

    So let’s ask some seditious questions, ones which used to be our birthright as Americans to ask.

    Sedition Question 1 +:

    Barack Obama will take yet another vacation this weekend. This time the golden calf and his scowling wife are headed to the Rezko house in Chicago. What possible reason does Obama have for a trip to Chicago? Is it because in June the Blagojevich trial starts and Obama has to assure himself that matters will not get out of hand and that the truth does not emerge in the trial?

    It wouldn’t be the first time Obama has held secret meetings which Big Media has ignored (recall Obama’s secret meetings with Jeremiah Wright even as Obama declared he was not meeting with Wright). Or is Obama out to help or hurt Alexi Giannoulias?

    Banker to the Mob as well as Treasurer of a near bankrupt Illinois, Alexi Giannoulias is in trouble. Alexi is an Obama friend who was elected because then popular Barack Obama supported him after Giannoulias secured money for Obama from his “connections” and fellow Greeks. But certain Chicago politicians resent Giannoulias because if Giannoulias becomes the Senator they don’t become the Senator and won’t have a chance to advance for a long time. Further, there is a fight in Chicago to be top dog. With Obama gone and Daley fading, the Jackson Family wants to be top dog. Others want to be top dog too. So Obama has a problem and a friend who knows secrets who has a problem:

    “His family’s business, Broadway Bank, was seized by regulators last month. He’s had trouble getting robust support from a White House that originally preferred another candidate. And political writer Stu Rothenberg devoted a column last week to asking “Is it time for Democrats to shove Giannoulias out?”

    Now, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., who did not endorse anyone in the Democratic primary, is flirting with the idea of backing Republican nominee Mark Kirk in the general election.[snip]

    It’s exceedingly rare for a lawmaker of one party to endorse a colleague of the other party — particularly within the same state — meaning Jackson lending his name to Kirk would be a bit of a shock to the political system and a blow to Giannoulias’s campaign.

    If Jackson does go for Kirk — or even remains neutral, which seems more likely — Giannoulias will lose out on the veteran Democratic congressman’s political operation on Chicago’s South Side.

    Giannoulias failed to attract the backing of any of Chicago’s three black congressmen in his primary race. Jackson was neutral, and Reps. Danny Davis and Bobby Rush endorsed one of Giannoulias’s rivals in a campaign he won with a plurality of just 39 percent.

    Rush was openly dismissive of Giannoulias, telling The Hill in December 2009 that he was “afraid” of a Giannoulias-Kirk matchup. “The messenger has to stand before the message. And if the messenger is weak, then the message is weak,” he told the paper.”

    Obama’s Chicago henchmen are fighting amongst each other for dominance and Obama has to stomp out the fights. So he goes to Chicago to confront the heads of the five families opposition to his continued Chicago rule.

    Sedition Question 2 +

    Speaking of Oily, we recall Obama’s promise to “heal the planet” and because of his holy ascension to yet another career builder higher office “the rise of the oceans began to slow”. What we see instead is oil covered waters and Obama on another vacation.

    Regular readers of Big Pink are aware that “From the day 1 when Obama oozed out of the Chicago swamps BP was right by his side.” Yesterday Sarah Palin, who has an astonishingly good record of disciplining Big Oil companies, joined in our call for transparency and accountability in regards to Obama’s BP connections and undue influence on oil policy.

    As we noted back in December 2007 Obama employed top campaign aides who worked for British Petroleum. We’ll keep repeating that fact until the Gulf is clean. Oh, and remember Tom Daschle?

    Tom Daschle, the tax cheat and one of the Dimocratic establishment kingpins which gifted Obama the Democratic nomination, failed to become the overlord of health care when his tax cheats became public. Do you ever wonder what happened to Tom? Tom was supposed to have not one, but two, top jobs at the Obama White House. Where is Tom, Obama’s confidant, today?:

    “After leaving the Senate, Daschle also landed a host of lucrative board spots, including with the energy giant BP Corporation, which paid him $250,000 in fees…”

    Tom Daschle of BP has access and has used that access on behalf of his clients. Who needs a Grand Jihad against America when you have these dubious characters at the highest levels of American government?

    Is Tom Daschle alone? In a little noted article “The Influence Game: Can BP’s Connections Help?” Alan Fram and Sharon Theimer of Associated Press asked the questions that need to be asked. Seditious questions:

    “With millions of dollars invested in campaign donations and an all-star lobbying team, BP executives could give an advanced class in how to build influence in Washington. But with millions of gallons of leaking oil bearing down on Gulf Coast beaches and bayous, they could also teach how to lose it.[snip]

    BP-related campaign and lobbying spending makes the political outlays of Toyota, another major foreign-based company under investigation by Congress for its failings on safety issues, look feeble by comparison.

    British-based BP, No. 4 on Fortune magazine’s list of the world’s largest companies, spent $16 million last year lobbying Congress and the federal government, and $3.5 million in the first three months of this year. That was before its rig disaster led at least a half-dozen congressional committees to start investigating. Japanese automaker Toyota, No. 10 in the Fortune ranking, spent $5 million lobbying last year and $880,000 in the first quarter this year.

    BP employees donated at least $160,000 to congressional candidates and their parties so far this election cycle. When campaign donations from BP’s lobbying corps of roughly three-dozen people and their firms’ political action committees, or PACs, are added to BP employees’ total, the political giving since January 2009 tops $1 million, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. The firms lobby for multiple clients, not just BP.”

    The BP money goes to Obama allies and Obama campaigns, but Obama hides behind fig leaves just as he did with Antoin “Tony” Rezko. Fact is BP and Obama are oily friends with oily interests. Obama’s henchmen continue the myth of a small donor campaign but it was Big Money that got him his job as well as oily friends, like Tom Daschle:

    “President Barack Obama’s campaign was the top recipient of BP employees’ money in the 2008 election: $71,000.

    Asked about the donations, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama “didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists.”[snip]

    In a reflection of the Obama administration’s and BP’s mutual interest in developing fuel alternatives to gasoline, Obama named Steven Koonin, BP’s former chief scientist, the Energy Department’s undersecretary for science.

    The other top recipients of BP employee 2008 election-giving both sit on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, one of the panels investigating the spill. Obama’s GOP presidential rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, received $37,000. And $16,000 went to a senator whose state is on the receiving end of much of the spilled oil, Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.”

    Everyone gets money from BP, even Bill Clinton. The difference is that some get money, some get bought with money.

    “BP’s Washington lobbyists include well-connected people from both major parties, some of them visitors to the White House.

    Lobbyist Tony Podesta is a prolific Democratic fundraiser and brother to John Podesta, who headed Obama’s transition team. Tony Podesta appears at least seven times in visitor logs released by the Obama White House. Six of Podesta’s visits were on behalf of clients, but he and his firm said none was BP-related. The other visit was to Vice President Joe Biden’s residence for a dinner in honor of the Greek Orthodox Church patriarch.

    The White House confirmed that BP lobbyists have been to the White House complex, but said only two visits were BP-related: Two of the oil company’s in-house lobbyists, Karen St. John and Michael Brien, attended 2009 meetings on EPA standards, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The OMB accepts all requests for meetings during the review of such regulations and discloses the meetings.

    BP declined to talk about its lobbying efforts or comment on White House visits.

    Other BP lobbyists from lobbying firms include Jim Turner, a former House Democrat from Texas now with the Arnold & Porter firm; Ken Duberstein, a former White House chief of staff under President Reagan whose lobbying firm employs several former top Democratic and Republican congressional aides; Michelle Laxalt, a Republican with ties to GOP lawmakers; and Michael Berman, president of the Duberstein firm and a former Democratic Senate aide and party adviser.”

    Tom Daschle is not alone. And others in the Obama orbit have “interests” in the outcome of BP’s finances. Ever wonder why the Deepwater Horizon well does not get blown up and shut down?

    “At least four lawmakers on committees investigating the spill reported family stock holdings in BP or two other companies involved in the rig disaster: Halliburton and Transocean, according to their most recent financial disclosure reports, filed last year.

    Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., disclosed family stock holdings of up to $15,000 in BP and $65,000 to $150,000 in Transocean. Asked whether he would recuse himself from the investigation in light of that, press secretary Whitney Smith called the question “preposterous.”

    At least Whitney Smith did not say “seditious”.

    We’ll have more seditious questions and answers tomorrow on our headlined topics -as well as the latest publicity stunt which borders on – the typical chiflados territory.


    Hooray For Sarah Palin – BO BP Edition

    Chris Matthews appeared on the Jay Leno show last week and droned on and on about former Vice President Dick Cheney and his connections to Halliburton and Big Oil. Only after insulting a woman guest did “tingles” bother to address the inaction of the current occupant of the White House.

    In December 2007 we briefly mentioned Obama’s British Petroleum (BP) connections. We directly addressed the issue of Obama’s BP connections in our recent Obama Crude article. From the day 1 when Obama oozed out of the Chicago swamps BP was right by his side. But Big Media continues to protect Barack Obama on his connections to BP and Big Oil.

    Hillary Clinton supporters remember the “transparency and accountability” debates well.

    It is odd to us that the only public figure that will discuss Obama’s Big Oil connections is Sarah Palin. Governor Palin has yet to explicitly mention Obama’s BP political aides, the ones we wrote about in 2007, but she might get there.

    “Right-wing darling Sarah Palin accused US President Barack Obama on Sunday of leading a lax response to the Gulf of Mexico spill because he is too close to the big oil companies.

    The former vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor, who champions off-shore drilling, criticized the media for not drawing the link between Obama and big oil and said if this spill had happened under former Republican president George W. Bush the scrutiny would have been far tougher.

    “I don’t know why the question isn’t asked by the mainstream media and by others if there’s any connection with the contributions made to president Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration,” she told Fox News Sunday.

    More than 3.5 million dollars has been given to candidates by BP over the last 20 years, with the largest single donation, 77,051 dollars, going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”

    Hillary Supporters know if this spill had happened under a President Clinton I or II, Big Media and DailyKooks would be on attack. The lobbyist connections and the political aides from BP would be under 24 hour home watch. But for Obama and BP only protection:

    “Palin suggested this close relationship explained why Obama was, “taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico.”

    The BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers, and sank two days later. Ever since, hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil, perhaps millions, have been spewing each day into the sea.

    The resulting slick, now the size of a small country, threatens to leave Louisiana’s fishing and coastal tourism industries in tatters, ruin pristine nature reserves, and cause decades of harm to the ecology of fragile marshes that are a haven for rare wildlife and migratory birds.[snip]

    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs mocked Palin’s suggestions that Obama was somehow in bed with big oil because of 2008 presidential campaign contributions.

    “Sarah Palin was involved in that election, but I don’t think, apparently, was paying a whole lot of attention,” Gibbs said.

    “I’m almost sure that the oil companies don’t consider the Obama administration a huge ally. We proposed a windfall profits tax when they jacked their oil prices up to charge for gasoline.

    “My suggestion to Sarah Palin would be to get slightly more informed as to what’s going on in and around oil drilling in this country.”

    It is no coincidence that the Obama thug attack against Sarah Palin is exactly the same as the Chis Matthews attack line on the Jay Leno show. The attack is to denounce as an ‘airhead’ the woman who makes a truthful critique. To great guffaws and a Jay Leno high-five, Chris Matthews attacked a woman (Chelsea Handler) when she lightly mocked Matthews’ fast talk. “You know my dear, you’re beautiful, but if you concentrate, you can keep up” sneered Matthews. Chelsea Handler was right that Matthews was fast talking so she got called an airhead by Matthews.

    Perhaps the “tingles” from Big Media should worry more about BO BP than Cheney and Halliburton, now that the BO BP crowd are in charge.

    Sarah Palin is right when she notes the BO BP connections so Palin is called an airhead by Obama thug Gibbs.

    We note that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is not called an airhead when he denounces the Obama inaction in the Gulf. So frustrated is Governor Jindal that he is taking a page from the Arizona Governor Jan Brewer playbook:

    “Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said the state will not waiting for federal approval to begin building sand barriers to protect the coastline from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

    Oil has pushed at least 12 miles into Louisiana’s marshes, with two major pelican rookeries awash in crude.

    Gov. Jindal was critical of the amount of boom his state received to ward off the oil seeping toward the coastline. But his major gripe comes at the expense of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have yet to give the go-ahead for the building of sand booms to protect the Louisiana wetlands. He used photographic evidence of oil breaking through hard booms, soft booms and another layer of protection, before being finally being corralled by a sand boom built by the National Guard.

    “It is so much better for us. We don’t want oil on one inch of Louisiana’s coastline, but we’d much rather fight this oil off of a hard coast, off of an island, off of an island, off of a sandy beach on our coastal islands, rather than having to fight it inside in these wetlands,” Gov. Jindal said, making the case for sand booms.

    The governor said he has been forced to protect Louisiana without the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is weighing the ecological impact of the construction of more sand booms.

    We are not waiting for them. We are going to build it,” Jindal said.

    “We can either fight battle — we can fight this oil — on the Barrier Islands 15 to 20 miles off of our coast, or we can face it in thousands of miles of fragmented wetlands,” Gov. Jindal said, clearing favoring the first option. “Every day we’re not given approval on this emergency permit to create more of these sand booms is another day when that choice is made for us, as more and more miles of our shore are hit by oil.”

    The oil spill, which has lasted 33 days since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, has yet to be stopped by British Petroleum at the source. The situation is dire for Gulf coast states.

    It is clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here,” Gov. Jindal said. “Oil sits and waits for cleanup, and every day that it waits for cleanup more of our marsh dies.”

    Jindal, like Palin and Brewer is telling the truth. Sarah Palin is telling the truth by pointing out Obama’s ties to Big Oil. Perhaps some other truth telling will be heard soon. We’ll discuss some of our favorite questions tomorrow.


    The Body Politic Fever

    Slowly, ever so slowly, Big Media elites pretend to attempt to understand the anger in the body politic. Even dimwitted Politico is in flux and slowly shifting its orbit away from its Obama sun cosmology.

    “Change is Barack Obama’s political calling card and the fuel that propelled his never-waste-a-crisis agenda — but change is boomeranging big time on the president in a turbulent and unpredictable 2010.

    For the first time since he emerged as a national political figure six years ago, Obama finds himself on the wrong side of the change equation — the status quo side — with challengers in both parties running against him, his policies or his handpicked candidates. [snip]

    If the results of Tuesday’s night’s grab bag of Senate and House elections prove anything, it’s that Obama didn’t copyright the anti-Washington change message. At a time of nearly 10 percent unemployment, anxiety about the economy, two wars and fury about bailouts and Beltway pay to play, the message of change is bigger than any one cause, one party or even Obama himself. [snip]

    Obama has become so synonymous with the Washington establishment these days that a top Democratic consultant joked, “What the White House needs to do is endorse the candidate they don’t want to have win, then the candidate they want to win can run as anti-establishment.”

    Before Tuesday’s election Mark Halperin cast an analytical eye towards what is happening in the body politic as it awakens to the fact of the multiple Obama treacheries:

    “Nothing has the potential to cleanse the body politic as fully as the sacking of incumbents and Establishment favorites.[snip]

    When the electoral soap operas are this darn interesting to activists and the media, it is especially easy to forget that the point of politics is not campaigns as sport but to determine who governs. Anger is the word of the year in America in both politics and government — anger at President Obama, Congress, incumbents, Wall Street and, most of all, Washington. Incumbents and Establishment candidates generally have reacted to the threat of this passion by doing combinations of three things: co-opting the rhetoric of rage, adopting populist positions on the hot-button issues of the day and deploying (without irony or hesitation) old-fashioned negative political attacks to try to destroy their opponents.”

    Surprisingly, Halperin notes the anger that is apparent to all but the Hopium befuddled and discusses the deeper meaning and the deeper crisis:

    “So the real question remains: How do politicians in office now, and after the election, respond to this overarching anger and address the will of the people?

    It would be great — if not overly idealistic in rhetoric or reality — to see politicians actually try to figure out why so many Americans are unhappy and look for ways to address their real concerns. This won’t be easy, of course, because the animating rationale of the anger is both diffuse and contradictory. [snip]

    Specter won’t have been defeated just because he switched parties. If he loses, it will be because, as a devastating last-minute Sestak television ad says, he became a Democrat to “save one job — his, not yours.

    Indeed, much of the bitterness across the country stems from a fundamental anxiety about jobs and the economy, and the belief that Washington isn’t doing anything to fix things. Immigration, health care, deficits, taxes — all of these issues are, at bottom, connected to the short- and long-term concern that the U.S. lacks a serious plan for creating a solid economy for current and future generations. What Americans want and need are politicians who recognize their fears and grapple with the issues in a serious way, even at a time of extreme partisanship in our politico-media culture.”

    We addressed that lack of a plan in article after article during the “stimulus” and bailout debates. It was clear to all but the Hopium befuddled that the Obama plans were not plans at all but a “throw money” at the problem tactic to create the impression that something was being done and that he really cared. Like Specter, Obama only cared about one career, “his, not yours”.

    It’s that lackadaisical cheap “cool” towards the jobs and lives of “bitter” “clinging” Americans and the so very obvious concern about his own well being and partying, along with his cocktail dress wife, that has long time Democrats forced to admit the Katrina nature of Obama’s self obsession and narcissism “politics”.

    “They are risking everything by this ‘go along with BP’ strategy they have that seems like, lackadaisical on this,” Carville told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Friday. “They seem like they’re inconvenienced by this, this is some giant thing getting in their way and somehow or another, if you let BP handle it, it’ll all go away. It’s not going away. It’s growing out there. It is a disaster of the first magnitude, and they’ve got to go to Plan B.”

    Even David Brooks, that great admirer of Obama’s creased pants (“I remember distinctly an image of-we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.“) , realizes that the anger is real and it is righteous. Brooks imagines (he imagines it because Brooks does not know, and certainly does not hang out with, any of the “bitter” and “clinging” angry Americans “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us...”) a man called Ben:

    “Let’s imagine a character named Ben. A couple of decades ago, Ben went to high school.

    It wasn’t easy. His parents were splitting up. His friends would cut class to smoke weed. His sister got pregnant. But Ben worked hard and graduated with decent grades and then studied at East Stroudsburg University and the University of Phoenix.

    That wasn’t easy either. Ben would like to have majored in history, but he needed a skill so he studied hotel management. Others spent their college years partying, but Ben worked hard. After graduation, he got a job with a hotel chain. A few years later, he got a different job and then a different one.

    He didn’t have lifetime security or a fabulous salary, but Ben worked. He filled in for the night manager, hired staff and cleaned up the breakfast area when that needed doing.

    In other words, in school, he labored when others didn’t. At work, he sacrificed when others didn’t. He bought a house he could afford when others didn’t.

    We can almost see the sneer on Brooks’ face as he wrote “University of Phoenix”, that online school, and not Harvard or Yale. As much as he tries to sympathize, Brooks has naught but contempt for “Ben” and his ilk. But at least the sympathetic pretense is in the right direction, not aimed at creased trousers.

    “This wasn’t a robotic suburban life. It was a satisfying, moral way of living. Ben lived according to an ethos of what you might call “earned success.” Arthur Brooks has a good description of this ethos in his new book “The Battle.” As Brooks (no relation) observes, the key to happiness is not being rich; it’s doing something arduous and creating something of value and then being able to reflect on the fruits of your labor.

    For Ben, right and wrong is contained in the relationship between effort and reward. If people do not work but get rewarded, that’s wrong. If people work and do not get rewarded, that’s wrong. But Ben believed that America is fundamentally a just society. He loved his country because people who work hard can usually overcome whatever unfairness is thrust in their way.

    But when Ben looked at Washington, he saw a political system that undermined the relationship between effort and reward. People in Washington spent money they didn’t have. They just borrowed it from the Chinese. People in Washington taxed those with responsible homes to bail out people who’d bought homes they couldn’t afford.

    People in Congress were caught up in a spoils system in which money was taken from those who worked and given to those with connections. Money was taken from those who produced and used to bail out the reckless, who were supposedly too big to fail.

    This was an affront to the core values of Ben’s life.

    The rest of Brooks’ column is wasted on his political hallucinations. But the idea of “Ben” is a good one. Ben is the type that Brooks and his finger bowl crowd sneer at as “teabaggers”. In that fight, we side with Ben.

    What’s laughable is that Brooks, the admirer of Obama’s creased pants, does not realize the real anger that “Ben” has nor that Obama is the embodiment of “Ben’s” anger. But oddly, Brooks does accurately describe how “Ben” got suckered by Obama and Obama lovers like Brooks. But super intelligent Brooks does not see the underlying self denunciation in his own analysis:

    “In a few years’ time, Ben is going to be disappointed again. He’s going to find that the outsiders he sent to Washington just screamed at each other at ever higher decibels. He’s going to find that he and voters like him unwittingly created a political culture in which compromise is impermissible, in which institutions are decimated by lone-wolf narcissists who have no interest in or talent for crafting legislation. Nothing will get done.”

    “Ben” voted for Obama on the advice of fools like Brooks. Now “Ben” is very angry against Obama, the “lone-wolf narcissist” and against Brooks’ friends who got bailouts. Obama and his apologists will respond that indeed they did get things done, legislation passed – but none of that has benefited “Ben”. Thus far Barack Obama has benefited himself and his friends and Brooks’ friends.

    “Ben” is the body politic. “Ben” is Jane and Jill and Jack and Bill and the feverishly anger “bitter”:

    “So far in 2010, an average of 23% of Americans have been satisfied with the way things are going in the United States. That is well below the 40% historical average Gallup has measured since 1979, when it began asking this question. The 2010 average is also the lowest Gallup has measured in a midterm election year, dating to 1982.

    Satisfaction with the way things are going is a key indicator to watch leading up to Election Day in November. Low satisfaction ratings have typically been associated with greater net seat change between parties in Congress in midterm election years, as was the case for the 1982, 1994, and 2006 elections. In each of those years, the average satisfaction rating was no higher than 33%. In 1994 and 2006, as is the case this year, the same party controlled the presidency and Congress heading into the elections, and party control of Congress changed hands after Election Day.”

    The anger, the fever in the body politic is only going to grow higher. “Ben” and the “bitter” will not go away soon. The ranks of the “bitter” and “clinging” are about to grow.

    Forget about the demographics Dimocrats boast about. The “bitter” “Bens” will only grow angrier and more feverish after November’s elections. It’s not just the political elected class that must be thrown out as bums. The Big Media Obama Cult must be flung into the swamps of Washington and Chicago too.

    The fever anger is not just against Barack Obama – the fever anger is also against those who enabled Obama. They all have to go before the fever can abate.


    As The World Burns – It’s ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed’ Day

    Today is “Draw Mohammed Day” but we will not be adding our artistic non-skills to the effort. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is a response (the Facebook page is HERE) to certain Muslims making death threats against depictions of any sort, positive or negative, of Mohammed, and the recent South Park controversy.

    “Apr. 22, 2010 update: Comedy Central’s “South Park” has censored its writers again with reference to Islam, this time due to a threat on an obscure website. Joshua Rhett Miller of Fox News explains at “Comedy Central Censors ‘South Park’ Episode After Muslim Site’s Threats.” posted a warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s “South Park,” which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit. Comedy Central bleeped out all references to the Prophet Muhammad in Wednesday night’s episode of the animated show “South Park.” The episode was a continuation of last week’s episode which depicted the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit. … Comedy Central confirmed to that it had censored the show, and that the episode was not available on its website. In addition to bleeping the words “Prophet Muhammad,” the show also covered the character with a large block labeled “Censored.”

    We’ll allow loathsome MSNBC to explain via video:

    We admire the fight for freedom of expression and are disgusted by attempts to dictate what drawings can or cannot be made, let alone published. We recall recently this controversy or should we say “cowardice”:

    “Nov. 2, 2009 update: Movie producer Roland Emmerich destroys a bevy of landmarks in his forthcoming 2012, including the White House, parts of the Vatican, and the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro. But not the Ka’ba in Mecca. He admits the reason is fear (ellipses in the original):

    Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit. But my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. … We have to all … in the Western world … think about this. You can actually … let … Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out.

    Every insult in the world against Jews and Christians (and Krishna and Buddha) is allowed and even celebrated but there is a protection racket from the Muslim side.

    Christ mocked in cartoons, men with beards dressed as nuns, rabbis as sex perverts, priests as child molesters, Mary drunk – no insult against Jews and Christians is out of bounds. Indeed, many of those mocking the Christians and the Jews are Christians and Jews themselves.

    The few protests (such as those from the ADL or the Catholic League) against smears and “comedy” against Jews and Christians are themselves mocked. Anyone who protests the smears and slurs against Christians and Jews is seen as a neanderthal right wing doofus who wants censorship and is not sufficiently cool or sophisticated. In a way it is the same dynamic we see every day in which anything/everything that can be in any way, justified or not justified at all, that can be denounced as “racist” is denounced – but the most blatant examples of sexism and misogyny are viewed as “cool” or hip in some sick frat boy way (yes we are talking about you Jon Favreau) and high-fived and hailed.

    We won’t Draw Mohammed today because we believe the religious beliefs of people should be respected and not mocked. We won’t purposefully mock Muslims in the same way we won’t purposefully mock Jews and Christians. It’s one of the reasons why we don’t comment on child molesting priests (hey, was Mohammed a pedophile and why can’t this be discussed?) and religious controversies or orgies of attacks against religions. We do condemn the evangelical Elmer Gantry type hypocrites when they fleece their flocks but that is the extent of our religion coverage. We’ve even restrained ourselves from commenting on why there are only Jews and Catholics (no Protestants in a majority Protestant country) on the Supreme Court, once Kagan is approved.

    We won’t Draw Mohammed today, but we condemn those who kill in his name. We respect the right of people to believe and have faith in whatever they want to believe and have faith in (oops, what about Charles Manson and his clan of kooks?). Perhaps we should say that we will not mock the beliefs and faith of others if they don’t hurt anyone else (this does not excuse the Cult Of Obama).

    We won’t Draw Mohammed today, but we applaud those who do so in the defense of free speech and equal opportunity mockery.


    The Obama Death Threat: You’ve Got Me

    Bill Clinton is golden; Barack Obama is Poison; the Tea is potent; Sarah Smiles, and Jeremiah Wright, like a werewolf, makes an appearance when the Pennsylvania primary moon is in the sky.

    Before Tuesday’s primaries Politico tried to insulate Barack Obama from damage and to place the blame on someone else. That someone else is Bill Clinton. If Bill Clinton’s candidates had lost we would have seen many “Clinton Era Is Over” headlines. But the candidates Bill Clinton actively campaigned for won. According to Politico, before the primary elections:

    “Tuesday’s primary elections in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas won’t just be a test of the national political environment. They’ll also offer a clearer look at who’s shaping up to be a powerful force in 2010 and who’s already struggling to stay relevant in the long midterm cycle.”

    Of these (including: Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell who forcefully supported Arlen Specter, Big Labor which “swung strongly behind Halter’s challenge to Lincoln in Arkansas”, the Dimocratic and Republican establishments in Kentucky in which the Dims barely beat out the trounced by Rand Paul Republican establishment, and Mike Hukabee’s waning clout in Arkansas) marked for blame, Bill Clinton is the golden boy, the comeback kid that never left. Politico tried to set Bill Clinton up by noting:

    “Former President Bill Clinton put his personal brand on the line in two of Tuesday’s elections, moving to help two struggling Democrats connect with the restive 2010 electorate. Clinton penned a fundraising appeal late last year for Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln and cut a pair of radio ads for her this month as she faced a tough primary challenge from Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, a former official in Clinton’s administration. And on Sunday, Clinton made a last-minute visit to Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District in an effort to give Democrat Mark Critz a boost in his bid to hold the seat of the late Rep. John Murtha. [snip] … both are tests of his staying power a decade after leaving office.”

    No doubt Bill Clinton’s star still shines bright, by the standards of his harshest critics in Big Media. Bill Clinton not only supported the winning candidate, in Arkansas (who now has to win a runoff election) but he also contributed the evenings only real semi shock. In the Pennsylvania 12th district, perhaps due to a Democratic turnout enhanced in the district by the contentious Sestak/Specter fight, the Democrat actually won handily in a race that many expected the Republican to either win or have a chance to win. But Bill Clinton has clout in Pennsylvania.

    Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama in Pennsylvania. Joe Sestak was one of her strong supporters. Sestak made pro forma statements about Obama in order to stifle supposed, but nonexistent, Obama clout in eastern Pennsylvania. But everyone knew that Sestak was fighting Specter only because Barack Obama assured Specter of his “full support”.

    Specter now knows we are right when we say “Obama can’t be trusted by friend nor foe“. And let’s not forget it was in the Pennsylvania primary in 2008, right after Ohio, that Jeremiah Wright became an irritant for Big Media’s worship of Barack Obama. It was also during the Pennsylvania primary in 2008 that Obama smeared small town voters as “bitter” and “clinging” at a fancy schmancy fundraiser in San Francisco.

    Bill Clinton as winner is only the sweet. We also have to consider the bitter poison which is Barack Obama. Make no mistake, the message from last night was not about incumbents or even muddled. The message is clear: Barack Obama is Poison.

    Critz won in Pennsylvania’s 12 district but he did so by embracing Bill Clinton and running away from Barack Obama. Critz stated he would have voted against Obama’s health scam and also moved so fast to the center, he ran against Republican Burns from the right. On abortion, guns, and gays, Critz is as conservative a Democrat as you can find. Critz ran from Obama and from Obamaism in all its corrupt forms. Critz knows Bill Clinton is the political way and the light and Barack Obama is Poison. Poison.

    “President Obama is playing an unusual role in tomorrow’s special election in Pennsylvania to replace the late Rep. Jack Murtha, king of Democratic pork barrelers. Both major party candidates are doing their best to distance themselves from Mr. Obama’s policies.

    It’s not surprising that Republican Tim Burns would be running against the Obama White House. But Mark Critz, a former staffer to Mr. Murtha, is spending much of his time as the Democratic candidate beating up on the president’s priorities too.

    As a sign of just how much blue-collar districts like Mr. Murtha’s are shifting, Mr. Critz sometimes appears to be trying to outflank Mr. Burns, a local businessman, on the right. He declares that he wants to be “an independent voice” and highlights how he disagrees with Washington Democrats by opposing gun control and abortion rights. But he goes further and says he would have voted against ObamaCare and the cap-and-trade climate change bill passed by the House last year. Both pieces of legislation were supported by Murtha. Nor has Mr. Critz asked President Obama to campaign for him or even sought an endorsement.

    Critz knew that Barack Obama is poison after witnessing Obama stink up deep blue Massachusetts, blue New Jersey, and purple Virginia. Critz ran away from venomous Barack Obama and attacked Republican Burns as a “tax hiker”. Critz won with a Republican message and Republican tactics:

    “Should Mr. Critz win tomorrow’s special election tomorrow, the real question might be: Did voters simply back the candidate who sounded the most conservative? Because no matter who wins the election, it’s pretty clear no one running was touting the Obama agenda.

    Last night Dimocrat Lawrence O’Donnell said the White House political operation is “reeling”. That’s because Obama candidates lose elections.

    To try to fight the “Barack Obama Is Poison” reality, the Obama thug machines is trotting out, via it’s Big Media affiliates the notion that it is not Obama and Obama Dimocrats who are in trouble, but rather all “incumbents”. Rubbish. Jay Cost calls rubbish, rubbish and calls out shill Richard Wolffe as well as Dan Balz and Chris Cilizza for publishing White House rubbish:

    “Ok. So, the idea is that the public mood is anti-incumbent in general, which means we should expect lots of “hand-to-hand” combat between Democrat and Republican candidates as they try to position themselves as being the most anti-Washington.

    No. This is totally wrong.

    It is a false equivalency being pushed because Arlen Specter is probably going to lose today. If that happens, Snarlin’ Arlen will make the fourth high-profile pol that Barack Obama embraced in friendship who was later rebuked by the voters of a blue or purple state. Deeds, Corzine, Coakley, Specter. The White House doesn’t want this “narrative” to get out – so they’re pushing this alternative instead.

    This isn’t about dissatisfaction with the performance of the 44th President. Oh no. This is about demanding change in Washington – the very same change, by gum, that Barack Obama has been working so hard to bring about!

    “Change that you can believe in” has gone from an over-worked campaign slogan to an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Vote for a Dem, you support the President’s agenda for change. Vote for a GOPer, you support the President’s agenda for change.

    But how many Republican incumbents are in severe jeopardy of losing their seat in Congress to a Democratic challenger?

    I count one: Joseph Cao of New Orleans.”

    The Obama campaign thug machine is working its mules in Big Media hard. Push the narrative guys, but it won’t work because you do not understand the American voter and the disgust with Obama:

    “Meanwhile, I count more than 20 Democrats in the House and Senate who are in severe jeopardy. Lower the threshold from “severe” to “serious” jeopardy, and I count maybe four Republicans and more than 50 Democrats.

    The White House is absolutely, positively correct that there is a divide between America and Washington – but what they fail to appreciate (or, more likely, they appreciate it but want to fake-out the press) is that Washington, D.C. now belongs to Barack Obama.

    Just as the student radicals of the 1960s became the tenured faculty of the 2000s, so the worm has turned in the District of Columbia. The gates have been crashed and the one-time insurgents are now comfortably ensconced as the establishment. And with the health care bill, Mr. Obama and his band of former rebels have enacted an extremely unpopular law that they cannot possibly blame on the old guard. George W. Bush may have “forced” Barack Obama’s hand on the stimulus, but Dubya had nary a thing to do with the health care bill.

    This is why President Obama was wrong to equate the election of Scott Brown to his own victory, and why he’s wrong to push this story now. He is the ultimate insider now. That snappy “Hail to the Chief” he hears every time he walks into a room should be sign enough of this fact.

    The White House likely knows this. They just don’t want us talking about how Obama can’t save a single high-profile candidate from a purple or blue state. They don’t want us to realize that his coattails have been torn and frayed by the choices he’s made in the last 17 months.

    That’s a nice way to say: Barack Obama Is Poison.

    But, but, what about the children incumbents?

    “No doubt that Republican incumbents are being rebuked across the country by their primary constituencies. But it’s all about who is closer to the establishment, which is currently commanded by a Democratic President whose job approval rating has been under 50% in the RCP average for five months. In this situation, challenger trumps incumbent, but Republican trumps Democrat. Republican challengers are farther than Republican incumbents from the establishment, so the latter better look out in the primaries. But in general elections, the dynamic will be very different. Republican challengers and incumbents will tar their Democratic opponents with a simple characterization: “A vote for my opponent is a vote for Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s agenda.” Democrats will have no such claim to make against Republicans.

    This “anti-incumbent” meme is just a smokescreen designed to get the White House through some tough news cycles.”

    As we wrote yesterday, “most of the winners in today’s primaries are getting a ticket to nowhere – well, at least the Dimocrats.” These Dimocrats will lose for the same reason we wrote on May 11th,Get the fork, get the shovel, call the undertaker, order the coffin, schedule the burial, get the foot tag – Arlen Specter’s dead, doornail dead. Diagnosis: Poison. Death by Obama.”

    Yup, Barack Obama is Poison. Poison.

    Obama is Poison and that is reflected in low Dimocratic voter turnout. In the district where Bill Clinton campaigned, turnout was up even contrary to the statewide turnout evn though the Sestak/Specter race generated a lot of “buzz”. But Bill Clinton can only help he cannot save a candidate that runs with Barack Obama. Indeed Dimocrats are still in a great deal of trouble in November:

    “But Critz’s victory was mixed for Democrats. Labor unions worked tirelessly to deliver this election for the party, which spent $1 million on the race. That amount of money and effort will be hard to duplicate in every contested congressional district. Also, it’s worth noting that Critz won by distancing himself from Democratic leaders in Washington and running against Obama’s health care plan. He boasted in an ad that he would have voted against it had he been in Congress. [snip]

    But Critz’s victory was mixed for Democrats. Labor unions worked tirelessly to deliver this election for the party, which spent $1 million on the race. That amount of money and effort will be hard to duplicate in every contested congressional district. Also, it’s worth noting that Critz won by distancing himself from Democratic leaders in Washington and running against Obama’s health care plan. He boasted in an ad that he would have voted against it had he been in Congress.”

    Barack Obama is Poison. Run from him if you want to live. Obama is the Terminator of political careers.

    Sarah Palin, like Bill Clinton helps. She was the first major figure to endorse Rand Paul and along with the Tea Party movement beat the Republican establishment. So Sarah Smiles.

    Barack Obama Is Poison and Dimocrats running for office are learning that lesson defeat by defeat. When we wrote “Mistake In ’08, Part II – The Power of Hillary Clinton Supporters in February of this year, we discussed a Weekly Standard article called “The Clinton Voters Jump Ship“:

    “For six months during the 2008 primaries, Obama and Hillary Clinton crisscrossed the country wooing voters. Obama consistently failed to win over important parts of the Democratic base, even after it became clear that he was going to be his party’s nominee. [snip]

    Instead, it may be that his general election triumph was the aberration—that his coalition was never as strong as the financial panic of September 2008 made it seem. It would mean that he is now returning to his natural base of support and that the Jacksonians and others who resisted him in the primaries have turned away once again from his charms.

    But it also suggests something more, that the Democratic party is now the party of Obama, for good and for ill. While the president is no Jacksonian, his party has many in its ranks. Democratic officeholders should be concerned about their voters fleeing not just from Obama but from their party as well. The president may be in the process of trimming the Democratic base back into something that looks an awful lot like his own primary base.

    A few weeks ago Representative Marion Berry, a Jacksonian from Arkansas’s First District, recounted an exchange he had with the president. Asked how he was going to prevent a midterm disaster on the scale of 1994, Obama replied, “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.” Which may be precisely the problem.”

    That is precisely the problem. “You’ve got me” isn’t a promise – it’s a death threat.

    Arizona bashing is not an antidote to the poison which is Barack Obama. That swill does not work even in Connecticut which wants the same laws (“rat bastard racists!”). The antidote to the poison which is Barack Obama is devastating defeat for his drone Dimocrats.

    Obama is poison and his poison is spreading, and killing.